“ISLAMOPHOBIA”

A young word for an old hostility, and one contested from the start — starting with its own “-phobia” suffix. Everyone agrees anti-Muslim violence is real and rising; the fight is over where criticism of Islam ends and bigotry against Muslims begins. This entry separates the settled from the contested — the history, the competing definitions, the recurring tropes, and real cases sorted by how disputed they actually are.

Like antisemitism, “Islamophobia” has no single legal definition. It has a contested history, a set of recognizable forms, and several competing definitions that disagree about one thing above all — where criticism of Islam (a religion, a set of ideas) ends and bigotry against Muslims (a people) begins. This page separates what is settled from what is contested.

Where the word came from

“Islamophobia” is far younger than the hostility it names. The French islamophobie appears in colonial-era writing around 1910 (a thesis by Alain Quellien; an article by Maurice Delafosse), and the phrase délire islamophobe(“Islamophobic delirium”) turns up in a 1925 book by Étienne Dinet and Sliman ben Ibrahim. It was attested in English by 1923, but only entered wide use through the Runnymede Trust’s 1997 report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. [OED]

Why the word itself is contested

The suffix “-phobia” is the first fault line. Critics argue it frames the attitude as an irrational, clinical fearrather than as reasoned prejudice, ideology, or racism — which is why many scholars and official bodies (the Council of Europe, UK governments) prefer “anti-Muslim racism” or “anti-Muslim hatred.” [Beydoun, Columbia Law Review]

“Islam is not a race” — and the reply

The deeper dispute: Islam is a religion— a set of ideas one can join, leave, or criticize — not a race. Critics say that means hostility to it cannot be “racism,” and that labeling criticism of Islam “Islamophobia” chills legitimate debate. The counter-argument is “racialization”: that Muslims are treated as a group defined by visible markers — dress, names, appearance, origin — so anti-Muslim hostility works as a form of cultural racism even though Islam is not biologically a race. Which view you hold largely decides which definition below you accept. [The Guardian]

The forms of Islamophobia

Islamophobia is not one thing. Scholars break it into recognizable forms that emerged in layers and still coexist. Knowing which form you are looking at is the first step in any honest analysis — and several of them sit right on the criticism-vs-bigotry line.

8th c. – present

Hostility aimed at Islam as a belief system — its truth-claims, scripture, or founder.

From the early medieval period, Christian writers largely classified Islam as a heresy and depicted Muhammad as a false prophet or impostor; these portrayals shaped Western attitudes for centuries. The tradition continues in modern secular “New Atheist” critique of Islamic doctrine. Scholars distinguish “anti-Islam bigotry” (rejecting the religion) from “anti-Muslim racism” (rejecting a racialized group) — different logics that the term “Islamophobia” often runs together.

The Christian Century →

Expand each form for its defining marker, era, and a source. Most are marked “contested” precisely because reasonable people disagree about where legitimate criticism or security policy ends and prejudice begins.

The recurring tropes

If the forms above are the categories, these are the specific, recurring claims and images they show up as — the conspiracy narratives and stereotypes referenced throughout the case record. The core demographic claims (Eurabia, the Great Replacement, “no-go zones”) are rejected by demographers and fact-checkers. Described here neutrally, not endorsed.

The fault line, stated plainly

Almost everyone agrees on two things: anti-Muslim violence and discrimination are real and rising, and criticism of Islam as a religion is legitimate. The sharp, unresolved disagreement is about exactly where the line fallsbetween the two — and whether “Islamophobia” rightly names anti-Muslim racism or wrongly shields a religion from criticism. That is the whole game, and it is why the same cartoon, book, or law can be called Islamophobic by one credible body and protected speech by another.

The competing definitions

There is no single definition of Islamophobia. These are the ones that actually drive policy and argument. They broadly agree on anti-Muslim violence and discrimination and diverge on one question: does criticism, mockery, or rejection of Islam count? Each is quoted from its own source.

The Runnymede Trust (Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia)

“Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism. (2017) — building on the 1997 definition of “an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination.””

On criticism of Islam & free speech

The 1997 report locates Islamophobia in “closed” views of Islam and explicitly preserves room for “open” views — legitimate disagreement, dialogue and critique. Pointedly, it adds that critical views of Islam should themselves be open to critique, “lest they be inaccurate and unfair.”

The eight “closed” views of Islam (1997)

Each closed view has a paired “open” view; Islamophobia, in this framework, is the closed column below.

Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.
Islam seen as separate and other — without values in common with other cultures, neither affected by them nor influencing them.
Islam seen as inferior to the West — barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.
Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in a “clash of civilisations.”
Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Criticisms made by Islam of “the West” rejected out of hand.criticism line
Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and their exclusion from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and “normal.”

Standing

The report that popularized the word in English (1997). Its 2017 update reframed Islamophobia as “anti-Muslim racism” — the framing that now dominates UK academic and policy debate and is echoed by the Council of Europe’s ECRI, though it is not a government-adopted legal definition.

Main criticisms

Critics (e.g. the National Secular Society) argue the “closed/open” scheme blurs criticism of a religion with prejudice against people.
The “Islam is not a race” objection: since Islam is a religion one can join or leave, critics say “anti-Muslim racism” is a category error — answered by scholars who argue Muslims are “racialized” by dress, name, and appearance.

Runnymede Trust →

Sources lean on the Runnymede Trust, the APPG on British Muslims, the UN (Special Rapporteur and General Assembly), the OIC / UN “defamation of religions” record, the National Secular Society and free-expression writers, and standard etymological references. Where history or definition is genuinely contested, it is marked as such rather than resolved here.